CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Woodside Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, December 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control arrangements in the Elm Suite, which had no residents yet.
The inspection took place on 04 December 2020 and was announced. It was a targeted inspection during the coronavirus pandemic, looking only at infection prevention and control.
Inspectors looked at the Elm Suite, which could accommodate eight people but had no residents at the time. They found that it was separate from the main home, with its own laundry, nursing station, staff entrance and outdoor space.
Inspectors were assured that the home had arrangements for safe admissions, PPE, testing, cleaning, visits, social distancing and managing outbreaks. No rating was given because this was a thematic review rather than a full inspection of care quality.
Separate infection-control setting
The Elm Suite was physically separate from the main home and had its own facilities. This was designed to help prevent infections spreading.
“The Elm Suite was completely separate to the main service.” from the report
Safe admissions
Inspectors found that arrangements were in place to admit people safely.
“The systems in place allowed people to be admitted to the home safely.” from the report
PPE and hygiene
The home was following national PPE guidance and had systems for continual cleaning.
“National guidance was followed on the use of personal protective equipment (PPE).” from the report
Planned support
People isolating in the suite would have a dedicated staff team supporting their care, meals and social needs.
“People isolating in the Elm suite would have their own dedicated staff team who would provide support for all their needs, including meals and social support.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01Has the Elm Suite now been used by residents, and did the infection-control arrangements work as planned?
- 02How are dedicated staff teams organised for people isolating in the Elm Suite?
- 03How are residents and visitors tested, and what happens if someone tests positive?
- 04How are visits arranged using the visiting pod or external room access?
- 05When was the home last given a full inspection covering care, staffing, medicines and leadership?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control in the Elm Suite; no residents were living there and the other areas of care were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 December 2020 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, December 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, responsive care, but noted mixed views about staffing and some records and medicine storage needed attention.
Inspectors visited the home without notice on 6 November 2018. They spoke with people living there, relatives and staff, observed care, and reviewed care plans, staff files, medicines, complaints, accidents, training and quality checks.
The home was caring and responsive. People described staff as kind, respectful and helpful. Care plans recorded people's preferences, activities were available, and people could use the garden and woodland. Medicines were administered safely, food and healthcare needs were supported, and the home was clean and well maintained.
There were some areas to improve. Views about staffing were mixed, medicine storage temperatures were often too high, and some mental capacity records did not contain enough detail. The home remained rated Good in all five areas, as it had been at the previous inspection.
Kind and respectful care
People said staff were kind, helpful and respectful. Inspectors saw staff build positive relationships and support people's dignity and independence.
“People told us staff were kind, caring and respectful.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's choices, routines, interests, communication needs and cultural or spiritual requirements.
“Care plans were person centred and included details of people's choices and preferences for how they wished to be supported.” from the report
Activities and outdoor space
People could take part in group or individual activities, regular outings and use of the garden and woodland.
“Regular outings and trips were organised, for example to a hotel for afternoon tea.” from the report
Staff training
Staff received induction, regular training and training linked to people's specific needs.
“Staff received an induction when they began at the service, regular training and training specific to people's needs.” from the report
Clean and maintained home
Inspectors found infection control procedures were followed and the home was clean, tidy and well maintained.
“People and staff told us the service was clean and well maintained.” from the report
Mixed views about staffing
needs fixingStaffing levels met the provider's assessed safe level, but some people and staff said there were not enough staff. One person said call bells were not always answered quickly.
“Definitely not enough staff. Call bells are not always answered quickly.” from the report
Medicine storage temperature
needs fixingThe medicine storage room was often above the temperature recommended by the manufacturer and the home's policy. This was still the case on the inspection day and the provider said it would be reviewed.
“The temperature was often recorded as being above the manufacturer recommendations and the provider's medicines policy guidance.” from the report
Some capacity records lacked detail
needs fixingSome mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions did not record enough detail about less restrictive options.
“Some did not record the same amount of detail as others in regard to least restrictive options that had been considered.” from the report
Care plan checks
needs fixingTwo air mattresses were set at the wrong level, although this was addressed during the inspection.
“It was highlighted to the manager that care plans did not always indicate the correct setting for people's air mattresses and we found two set at the incorrect level.” from the report
Management change
minorThe previous registered manager had left. A new manager was in post, was still completing induction and had not yet registered with the Commission.
“The registered manager had recently left the service and a new manager was in post.” from the report
- 01What has changed in staffing levels and call bell response times since the inspection?
- 02How are medicine storage temperatures monitored now, and what action is taken if they are too high?
- 03How do you check that mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions record the options considered?
- 04How are care plans checked to make sure equipment settings, including air mattresses, are correct?
- 05Who is the registered manager now, and how is leadership continuity being maintained?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five areas, using conversations, observations and records; the overall Good rating and each individual rating remained unchanged from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 December 2018 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Woodside Nursing Home
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 December 2010.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
25 live-in carers within about an hour of Bath and North East Somerset
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £1,030 to £1,320 a week. 20 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She enabled mum to lead a high quality life in her own home until the very end and Lena and her family became close personal friends to me and my family.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.